Martin Cakebread: Rather than cut the Forces' pay, isn't it time we cut final salary pensions for all MPs and civil servants?

Martin Cakebread is a former elected Board Director of the independent defence and foreign affairs campaign group UKNDA and a former strategy consultant on the David James report. Here he responds to the news on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph that paratroopers who have just returned from Afghanistan face a pay cut of as much as 10%.

I, like many of you, am all for economic stability. I have advocated it, I support it and I believe in economic security. What I do not agree with is cutting our Armed Forces' pay, particularly those men and women who have risked their lives,
served on the front line and faced the enemy head on.

It is not right. It is not clever. It is not something I support. We all acknowledge the need to resolve the UK's ballooning deficit and debt.

Yet we seem unwilling to face the biggest liability of all - public sector final salary pensions. Most recently estimated to cost each and every one of us over one trillion pounds. Reform of those gold plated pensions has barely been touched. And to suggest that MPs pensions are "sacred" is frankly insulting at a time when the rest of the country can just about survive.

Our Armed Forces are not expendable. Nor are they mugs. I have the upmost confidence in the Government, however, there are times when some greater thought needs to go in to the decisions that directly affect the lives of a brave minority who are time and again asked to do 'more with less'.

Martin Cakebread: Is it time for the functions of the RAF to be transferred to the Army and Navy?

Martin Cakebread is a former elected Board Director of the independent defence and foreign affairs campaign group UKNDA and a former strategy consultant on the David James report.

With events in North Africa taking many of the headlines of late, what is the future for Britain's Armed Forces? Can the Forces continue as they are presently configured? Is tri-service rivalry really an issue? Or is there a third way?

To most politicians in the Westminster bubble, loyalty and support for the Armed Forces is second to none. The key questions surrounding future capability and structure of the Armed Forces is something the Government has outlined in the Strategic Defence and Security Review. The news that a clear plan is in place for the MoD, in conjunction with a positive aim of reducing the department's budget deficit, is to be congratulated.

With the latest images of RAF aircraft flying sorties over North Africa, some defence commentators have questioned, and to some extent rightly, the logic of the decision to deploy the RAF. Why, you ask? Air superiority is a priority to any operation, although Close Air Support (CAS) as we see now is another matter. Could it be done more effectively, possibly via another means? Answer: Possibly yes. The decision taken in the SDSR to continue building both future aircraft carriers is a welcome one - many in the Royal Navy have long waited the arrival of these highly capable vessels (despite what some would argue as fiscally unsound contract negotiations).

Martin Cakebread: Why I am optimistic about the Government’s plans for the Armed Forces

Martin Cakebread is a former elected Board Director of the independent defence and foreign affairs campaign group UKNDA and a former strategy consultant on the David James report.

Back in 2001 I, like many of you, watched in horror as the Twin Towers fell in the United States. I felt shock, anger and fear at the time. The one thing I knew was that we, the International Community had to do something. We had to reply, a kind of ‘fire with fire’ scenario if you like. Fast forward a few months and Britain’s Armed Forces found themselves in Afghanistan, albeit ‘light’.

Fast forward another few years and we, (the West) invaded Iraq. I won’t labour the rights and wrongs of that decision. What I know is that the one constant throughout this period, pretty much since 2001 to date (2011) is that the UK’s Armed Forces have been heavily engaged against our enemies on the battlefield. No one said it would be easy, no one said it would be quick. The one thing people have said is that war has a cost, on both our people and resources. Military action requires funding, political support and plenty of resources, not to mention a plan.

I had the privilege of speaking at a Stop the War Coalition debate last year before the general election, along with the TaxPayer’s Alliance, BBC and wrote briefly in the Crossbow spring edition about Britain’s role in Afghanistan. My point was clear: this was a regional operation involving the UN that would not stop because we wanted it too. Moreover, and most importantly our troops had not been resourced properly for far too long.

If we take some basic facts, the MOD budget was frozen from 1997 at 0% increases for five years (a real terms cut). Thereafter it saw extremely minimal increases in funding and these only came from the special reserve. However, during the height of the Iraq conflict in 2005, military chiefs were ordered by the Treasury to cut - yes, that infamous word we now associate with the BBC, cut - defence spending. Whilst the left may have rejoiced ideologically, the reality was our men and women in uniform (from all backgrounds) suffered as a result.